Its often hard to accept the truth, especially when that truth is scary, when reality seems to offer you no solutions, only poison from which to pick. Its as with a man I once knew who insisted it couldnt be proven that smoking was bad for you. He knew better in his heart, but his available choices  giving up cigarettes or accepting the danger of their use were both emotionally unpalatable to him. Enter the rationalization. Were seeing the same thing with Republicans in the wake of Barack Obamas re-election. Radio host Sean Hannity, citing changing American demographics, stated a while back that his position on immigration has evolved: we now must offer illegals some kind of pathway to citizenship (a.k.a. amnesty). Other conservatives are warning that we must dispense with social issues or the Republican Party will be dispensed with. Of course, this isnt always rationalization.

Seems to me that the hardliners are the ones rationalizing. You can rationalize your positions and hold firm, and get nothing near what you feel the country needs.

As a conservative, I don’t like conceding either. However, it’s better than the alternative which is communism. Sad as that is. Gay people marrying isn’t as important as losing ground in the world.

Just as Krauthammer stated that the unions haven’t waken up to the reality that the world has caught up with us after WW2, Republicans haven’t woken up to the reality that gays marrying, or whatever social issue (aside from abortion, that is murder) isn’t as important as letting the Democrats take over.

So you can stubbornly hold firm, and stubbornly lose. Sad as that is.

2
posted on 12/20/2012 10:25:20 AM PST
by autumnraine
(America how long will you be so deaf and dumb to the tumbril wheels carrying you to the guillotine?)

I believe that Fiscal Conservatism and Social Conservatism need to work together — they support each other. But it has been decades since the GOP really accepted that quaint little notion. I’ve been compromising my whole life, and look where I’ve ended up: Obama is a near dictator and the country is in a Depression. Compromising hasn’t worked out for me.

I don’t intend to compromise anymore. I don’t intend to vote Republican anymore. I don’t think electoral politics are the solution. Politics can be pursued by other means. But you can work closely with John Boehner if you like — let me know how that works out for you.

Working at the grass roots makes a lot sense. One problem. We are so successful as a civilization (for the moment) that basic truths can be concealed and are not easily transfered to the next generation. Church can help but it’s tough. Oh well, “Never give up, Never surrender” is still my motto.

In Massachusetts,we had a GOP chairman that declared the state GOP would avoid social issues,then ran a candidate for governor(Charlie Baker) who proudly proclaimed he was to the left of Obama on social issues,marched in gay pride parades,and boasted how his brother was "married" to another man! His running mate (Richard Tisei)was an open homosexual who co-authored the transsexual bathroom bill.Scott Brown ran ads boasting how he was proud to support Planned Parenthood and voted to repeal DADT!

Guess what happened?

They all LOST!!!!!

The lesson? You don't win elections by driving away a third of your conservative base by brown-nosing people that will NEVER vote for you anyway!

I look at it from the perspective of the turn-based strategy game Civilization V.

Every so often you’ll get a “Golden Age” where you accrue food, population, wealth, and power at double the normal rate. When the golden age is over, you go back to the norm, whatever that may be. As you get farther along in the game, the golden ages don’t last as long, but they provide the same benefits.

America, as I see it, is much the same way. The first golden age was in the late 18th century with our founding. We had our golden ages pretty consistently in the 19th century. We saw the ushering of a new Republic, the industrial revolution.

We had some moments of greatness in the 20th century with the industrialization of our military, the rise of nuclear power and the space race. We went through a vast vacuum of nihilism and hedonism in the 60s and the subsequent hangover of the 70s and ushered the most recent golden age under Reagan.

Sadly, while we had a few golden ages under Republican control of the legislative branch in the 90s and even a small boon under GW, the fact is that we’re not due for another golden age for a while, and even if it does come about, it’ll be short lived.

I do see war on the horizon. Whether it’s a protracted international scuffle among disparate rebel groups and NATO or a full on offensive in Iran with our dwindling and tired military, something’s coming. The storm clouds are there, and it’s really a matter of how we, as a culture, define ourselves going forward.

The pre-war US in the early 1900s was like an adolescent teen, awkward and scrawny. With 2 wars under our belt, we were scarred but strong. We persevered. We literally shot for the moon. Then, like an alcoholic taking his first drink, we let the national tragedy of a president’s assassination and the death of notable national figures such as MLK turn us into a besotted old fool pining for the past.

The latest generation of Americans has lived with cradle-to-grave entitlements and handups or handouts throughout the cycle of life. They’ve never had to live on “condiment sandwiches,” to use my wife’s term. At some point the gravy train is going to come grinding to a halt as the wheels fall off and the tracks buckle from the weight of the load. At that point, we’ll see a surge of welfare zombies, incapable of even basic self-sustenance, trying to bring down the prepared and knowledgeable among us. We could even argue that’s already happening on a “civilized” basis through the redistribution efforts of this administration.

If international war doesn’t tear us apart, an internal, bloody, and socially destructive war will rend this nation in two and turn American against American in a war that will likely leave millions in the streets, the aristocrats surrounded by armed security and the US military, and the bourgeousie among us fighting for our very survival on the streets and in our neighborhoods.

I pray to God it doesn’t happen, but I fear the only way to bring America back around to the light is to free her from the shackles of the dependent and allow her to rise from the ashes poured upon her by the aristocrats whose only goal is self-sustaining power and riches fed by a working class who are about fed up with the bullshit.

11
posted on 12/20/2012 10:40:45 AM PST
by rarestia
(It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)

Gay people marrying isn’t as important as losing ground in the world....

Look. If a conservative is wrong on basic fundamental issues like gay marriage, then they are wrong on basic economic issues as well. If you are OK with gay marriage - or if (same thing) you don't feel its an important issue - you are a social liberal. Therefore you are what's wrong with the Republican Party.

12
posted on 12/20/2012 10:40:56 AM PST
by Responsibility2nd
(NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)

I don’t even understand your point. Can we trade opposition to gay marriage for something? No, not really. Is it that the gay marriage thing is a ware of time, and our energy would be better spent in other directions? Maybe, but of course somehow the other side is able to focus on all things at once. Why not us? No reason.

Explain to me how conceding this or that helps against communism or helps reverse the ground we’re apparently losing in the world. Because it seems to me perfectly possible to lose on both the issues important to you and whatever “social issues” you don’t care about as much simultaneously. If all conservatives everywhere capitulated and immediately allowed gay marriage in all 57 states and federally would Dems give us anything? Or would they say, “Thanks. Now, about those tax hikes. Is the top rate going up to 100%, or do you have something else to trade?”

Yup. And the opposition's ads were very instructive. Scott Brown? Richard Tisei? Charlie Baker? Those guys were scary, scary, radical rightwingers! I mean, they were so rightwing, it was crazy!! American didn't need that kind of extremism at a time like this!!!!

Which is why Deval Patrick, Elizabeth Warren, and Joe Tierney won their races.

The Left does NOT recognize any attempt to compromise by the right. It's just a sign of weakness; a signal that the GOP has no principles for which it will fight.

If a conservative is wrong on basic fundamental issues like gay marriage, then they are wrong on basic economic issues as well

Well, that's certainly one way to look at things. Its a stupid way to look at things, but it's one way.

The bottom line is that you so-called conservatives are the biggest hypocrites there are. That's why your republican party is the Whig party.

You whine about big govt out of one side of your mouth and then want to violate the Constitution up and down regarding your idiotic war on drugs or the patriot act or NDAA.

You whine about big govt regulation out of one side of your mouth and then want to use big govt to dictate marriage or tell people they cant screw on film and sell it (we can quibble about the porn because that is actually interstate trade).

You whine about big govt spending and beurocracy out of one side of your mouth and then get in control of govt and eliminate, reduce or clean up what?

You people can cling to your notions of using big govt to dictate YOUR morality but that America died a long time ago. Wake up and smell the coffee or the entire notion of conservatism will go buh bye. You are what's wrong with the republican party.

You people seem to be under the impression that ignoring 2 homos down the street that went to some “church” and now call each other husband and husband somehow murders fiscal conservativsm. Please explain how that works. Please explain how you tell peple that you believe in the founder’s constitution, not the progressive one after you’ve become a progressive and moral dictator. Hows that work?

despite all the points made in the article, i think conservatives have the future advantage because of the following: the credit cycle that started in the mid 1930s is getting close to the end.

We must be pretty close because unsustainable debt levels, unsustainable deficits, QE^n etc. are barely producing economic growth. Maybe its got a few more years, but is not long term sustainable.

In the 1930’s, and in previous depressions, social and cultural and religious behavior took a dramatically more conservative turn, even as gov’t got bigger.

I suspect in the next depression, we will see the same return to conservative values because, after the economic collapse, it will be easier to believe that the liberalism and permissiveness were part of the cause.

one thing we do know, if there is another depression, government is not going to grow. The welfare state is going to collapse under its own debt and the democrat party will collapse along with it.

conservatives need to be ready to seize that moment, as there will be plenty of non-conservative political elements that will try to gain from the chaos.

In the late 1920’s i’m sure the democrats were feeling depressed, and thinking that trends in the future were against them. In fact, they were in the best possible position... out of power when the SHTF

I’ve been asking people here for some time where in the constitution the federal government is granted the power grant any sanction or priviliage for or regulate marriage and I usually get a lot of nothing. I’ve heard of cafeteria catholics, so I guess there are also cafeteria constitutionalists. Nevermind that every time government touches marriage it only makes things worse, they think if they get the ring of power and pass just one more law, marriage will be defended.

24
posted on 12/20/2012 11:35:30 AM PST
by Orangedog
(An optimist is someone who tells you to 'cheer up' when things are going his way)

Amen brother. There’s a HUGE chasm of difference between FOR all the things these big govt republicans accuse libertarians of and having a consistent belief that it’s not in the Constitution nor the damned govt’s job. Make mine the Founder’s Libertarianism every time.

I don’t know whether to feel honored that you value my opinions so much so that you look to comments I’ve made on other threads to further your necessary learning experiences as you attempt to grow into conservatism.

Or feel creeped out that you are stalking me.

Either way - go ahead and search all the previous comments I’ve made to your hearts content. Read them. Study them. Learn from them. Practice them.

Then maybe you’ll be a conservative some day - and avoid a slap down from JR (post 28)

31
posted on 12/20/2012 12:25:14 PM PST
by Responsibility2nd
(NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)

LMAO! You got nothing on me. You'd do well to take some of your own medicine to recognize the cognitive dissonance from which you suffer greatly. And BTW, It's really not gonna wreck my day if I get banned. Sure, I love arguing with hypocrite jack boots like you, but I'll survive if I cant.

I believe that Fiscal Conservatism and Social Conservatism need to work together  they support each other. But it has been decades since the GOP really accepted that quaint little notion. Ive been compromising my whole life, and look where Ive ended up: Obama is a near dictator and the country is in a Depression. Compromising hasnt worked out for me.

I dont intend to compromise anymore. I dont intend to vote Republican anymore. I dont think electoral politics are the solution. Politics can be pursued by other means. But you can work closely with John Boehner if you like  let me know how that works out for you.

I agree 100% on what you have just said here.

Every day we find that my tagline is true. And here is the whole thought, expanded for full comprehension:

The GOP's sole purpose is to serve as an ineffective alternative to the Democrat Party. They give voters the false impression that they have a choice. Unfortunately, both choices turn the government more and more toward Statism, the difference being in terms of degrees. In modern times, the government has never gotten smaller under either party.

43
posted on 12/20/2012 12:43:54 PM PST
by EricT.
(The GOP's sole purpose is to serve as an ineffective alternative to the Democrat Party.)

He is saying at the fed level. Marriage, abortion, guns and many are all suppose to be off limits for the feds. They are not in the Constitution and should be handled by the States; we should not encourage the feds to do what is not part of their approved powers.

Understood. Agreed. It's an abomination. We SHOULD fight it. With our last breath. But in our communities and in our churches. Fighting it by using the federal govt the same way that we rail against democrats for using the federal govt makes us just as guilty and it makes us look like blithering idiots when we talk about misuse of govt. No?

Sure we fight against govt enshrining that garbage in law, but that doesn't mean WE should enshrine it in law. How do we tell them they're wrong to misuse govt to impose their will when we're going to misuse govt to impose ours? I dont distinguish the difference. Wrong is wrong.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.